Color of Ansco/PF 130

[esearing]

I made my developer comparisons a few years ago. I evaluated Ethol LPD, PF130, Ilford Multigrade, Ilford Universal, Liquidol, Dektol, Eco Pro and even some specialty developers like PF106 and PF120 on MGFB Classic Glossy paper. I ran 3 different contrast images through them to see what I liked best. I may try PF102 one day as it is a glycin developer without metol.

PF130 was the one that stood out among them all and gave the cleanest whites and darkest blacks. It can be really cold when used freshly mixed and 1:1 on Bergger VC papers.

Ethol LPD 1:4 or 1:8 on warm tone paper gives a very soft subtle feeling for low contrast middle tone images that has its own look, no real blacks. It takes 5+ minutes to fully develop but you can watch it go from muddy to clear as it completes.
Using LPD 1:1 on glossy paper is rich but not quite as nice as PF130.

I found the others to be merely adequate and blah in comparison.
I liked Liquidol the least but it was being branded as the new sliced bread at the time. Maybe better for RC papers.

As an experiment one day for an image that has a broad range of tones, I would like to try partial development in PF130 1:1 and partial in LPD 1:4 just to see what it does. Similar to how they used to control contrast using hard vs soft developers on graded papers.

[j.e.simmons]

With 130 you can also make small contrast variations - similar to using a water bath with amidol - by varying agitation time. For instance agitate for half the development time and let the print lie still in the developer for the other half.

[esearing]

With 130 you can also make small contrast variations - similar to using a water bath with amidol - by varying agitation time. For instance agitate for half the development time and let the print lie still in the developer for the other half.

I didn't know that - will have to try it as I usually just keep things moving in the developer. I have noticed the lighter grey tones seem to come in later than the rest of the dark and mid tones .
Also going to attempt bleach + very dilute second pass developer (1:10) this weekend to see if it alters the tone to a warmer or brownish tone. I don't think it will.

[Drew Wiley]

I strongly recommend against any kind of water-bath/amidol development of either Ilford Classic or Cooltone. Somebody might succeed if they can keep agitation going; but more likely things will come out splotchy, especially in open skies etc. I don't know why that is the case with these two. MGWT doesn't have the same idiosyncrasy, and would be a better choice. I've pretty much abandoned amidol for any VC paper, and now standardize on 130.

Reducing and bleaching also depends on the specific paper and developer, also on what specific toners are involved. Sometime, for better or worse, you end up with a localized split-tone effect. It a fun tweak to experiment with, and has sometimes landed me wonderful effects, and sometimes bellyflops. Whenever I have that kind of tinkering in mind, I make sure I have made spare prints in advance, with at least one or two left alone. It's easy to over-do this.

[esearing]

Also going to attempt bleach + very dilute second pass developer (1:10) this weekend to see if it alters the tone to a warmer or brownish tone. I don't think it will.

Update: Ansco/PF 130 as a second pass at 1:10 strength has almost no color change once dry. There may be some perceived differences due to the bleaching opening up the blacks some. Wet it does kind of look like it might go warmer.
Pyrocat-M as a second pass developer at 1:1:100 does have a much warmer tone when wet but dries just slightly warmer brown and may be due to slight paper stain. But its the look I am after so may try some warmer base papers in the future.
Both took about 10 minutes to bleach and then between 6 and 8 minutes to redevelop the image, going longer has no impact.
used plain tap water for dilution so your results may vary

MGFB Matte vs Glossy - nearly identical - differences could be original print differences but both have the same warmth.

[jnantz]

With 130 you can also make small contrast variations - similar to using a water bath with amidol - by varying agitation time. For instance agitate for half the development time and let the print lie still in the developer for the other half.

+1

[esearing]

With 130 you can also make small contrast variations - similar to using a water bath with amidol - by varying agitation time. For instance agitate for half the development time and let the print lie still in the developer for the other half.

I tried it. It is subtle but to my eye the highlights just don't come in fully as they do with constant agitation.
I also read the Formulary instructions for PF130 again (below). I typically am in a hot darkroom so my temperature is closer to 75* and I usually agitate for 2 minutes at 1:2 dilution. The print does come up in 30-40 seconds and could be pulled at 60 but there are upper and middle tones that seem to darken and sharpen during that extra minute.

USING THE DEVELOPER (PF130 Tech sheet)
For normal contrast - prepare the working solution by a 1:1 dilution of the stock solution with water. Develop the
print for 45-60 seconds at 20° C/68° F.
For more contrast - develop the print for 45-60 seconds in undiluted stock solution at 20° C/68° F.
For softer results - dilute the stock solution 1:2 with water, and develop the print for 45-60 seconds at 20° C/68° F.


Makes me wonder if I should expose slightly longer and pull the print at 60 seconds - Step wedge testing might be coming in the near future.

[Drew Wiley]

1:1 is awfully strong. Doing 1:3 will give you better control due to longer time. Premature "pull processing" works poorly with most current silver papers, especially VC. Muddy results. It's not a good way to alter final tone. You also might want to try a cooling water jacket tray around the outside of the developer tray per se. Either a cold water drip line into that, or else a little recirculating aquarium pump and a blue ice pack should allow you to sustain a more realistic temp. Hydroquinone is one of the ingredients of 130, and image color can be affected when it's too far off standard temp one direction or the other. Exactly how depends on the specific paper and how you tone it afterwards. But it is noteworthy.

[Renato Tonelli]

1:1 is awfully strong. Doing 1:3 will give you better control due to longer time. Premature "pull processing" works poorly with most current silver papers, especially VC. Muddy results. It's not a good way to alter final tone. You also might want to try a cooling water jacket tray around the outside of the developer tray per se. Either a cold water drip line into that, or else a little recirculating aquarium pump and a blue ice pack should allow you to sustain a more realistic temp. Hydroquinone is one of the ingredients of 130, and image color can be affected when it's too far off standard temp one direction or the other. Exactly how depends on the specific paper and how you tone it afterwards. But it is noteworthy.

Good tip regarding the dilution. Some papers (I forget which one at the moment) developed very fast at 1:1; something like one minute - way too fast to control.

[esearing]

1:1 is awfully strong. Doing 1:3 will give you better control due to longer time. Premature "pull processing" works poorly with most current silver papers, especially VC. Muddy results. It's not a good way to alter final tone. You also might want to try a cooling water jacket tray around the outside of the developer tray per se. Either a cold water drip line into that, or else a little recirculating aquarium pump and a blue ice pack should allow you to sustain a more realistic temp. Hydroquinone is one of the ingredients of 130, and image color can be affected when it's too far off standard temp one direction or the other. Exactly how depends on the specific paper and how you tone it afterwards. But it is noteworthy.

I only use 1:1 with Bergger VC Glossy paper because it has a cooler tone than Ilford. With Ilford MGFB I use it 1:2 (2mins) or 1:4 (5mins) for a slightly warmer flatter tone. I polled some people I consider to be very good printers and the consensus was to leave it in for full development. All suggest their normal is longer than 2 minutes regardless of developer used. One also mentioned another technique used in the past where minimal exposure is given and the print left to sit in developer overnight. Not sure what that would do on a modern paper.

I have not really noticed much of a difference in tone due to heat or cold.